Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the two output shapes (counts vs linking pages/anchors), but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, pagination, or side effects (though it is clearly a read operation). Significant gaps remain.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core dual behavior without waste. It is appropriately sized for the information it conveys.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage across three parameters, the description is too thin. It omits pagination, output format details, and any prerequisite or permission context, leaving the agent under-informed for calling the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all three parameters. It implicitly maps 'url' to the per-URL mode and 'site_url' to the site-wide mode, but the 'page' parameter (integer, default 0) is entirely unexplained, leaving a clear gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific resource ('backlinks') and two modes of operation: site-wide inbound link counts versus linking pages and anchors for a single URL. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like traffic_trend or crawl_health, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use each mode — omit 'url' for site-wide counts, provide it for per-URL anchors — but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the shape of the returned data (statistics plus issues grouped by type), which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema. However, it says nothing about read-only safety, whether it is Bing-specific only, authentication/permission needs, rate limits, or how the days window affects results.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single dense sentence with the core resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the parenthetical field list could be tightened or traded for the missing usage/parameter guidance.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the returned content well enough to call the tool. It is still incomplete on the meaning of days/site_url and on when this is the right tool relative to its many siblings.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters, and it does not. It never explains that site_url selects the property or that days scopes the reporting window (default 30), leaving the meaning of both inputs entirely to the bare schema titles.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly names the resource (Bing crawl statistics and crawl issues) and enumerates the concrete fields returned (pages crawled, errors, in index, status codes, issue grouping), which lets an agent distinguish it from traffic_trend or search_performance. It lacks an explicit verb and never names a sibling to contrast against, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus traffic_trend, search_performance, or url_info, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The agent must infer usage purely from the resource name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only lookup and conveys the weekly granularity of the data, but says nothing about permissions required, rate limits, quota cost, caching/freshness beyond 'weekly', or what happens for keywords with no data.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste; the data scope and match types come first. It is a noun phrase rather than a complete clause, but nothing is redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. Still, for a data-retrieval tool with no annotations and three siblings in similar territory, the definition omits the usage routing and operational constraints an agent needs to call it confidently.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does map all three parameters conceptually (keyword, country, language). However, it adds no format guidance beyond the schema's defaults (e.g. 'us', 'en-US' codes) or behavior when country/language are omitted.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the specific data returned (Bing weekly search impressions), the match dimensions (exact and broad), and the scoping inputs (keyword, country, language). That is enough to identify the resource, but it offers no differentiation from siblings like traffic_trend or search_performance, which also surface search-visibility data.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as traffic_trend or search_performance. An agent must guess which of the sibling tools answers a keyword-visibility question.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that verification status is part of the result, but it never explicitly states that the call is read-only, has no side effects, or requires no arguments. For a zero-argument list operation the risk is low, but the disclosure is thin.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded before the verification detail. It is a fragment rather than a full sentence, but nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and with no parameters there are no argument semantics to cover. The description supplies the account scope and the key returned attribute, making it sufficient for a simple enumeration tool, though a note on read-only behavior would make it airtight.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify and the baseline of 4 applies. Schema coverage is also 100%, leaving no gap to compensate for.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the specific resource (sites in a Bing Webmaster Tools account) and adds a distinguishing attribute (verification status), which clearly separates it from siblings like traffic_trend or backlinks. The verb is only implied by the tool name rather than stated in the description itself, so it falls just short of a full 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling tool is named as an alternative. An agent must infer that this is the entry-point call for enumerating account properties before drilling into the other reporting tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a key trait—that Bing updates these statistics weekly, so data has a freshness lag—but says nothing about authorization needs (e.g., whether site_url must be a verified property) or pagination/limit behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tightly written sentences with no waste. The metric list and dimension choices are front-loaded, and the weekly-update caveat follows immediately as the second relevant point.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return-value formatting need not be explained. However, with no annotations and four parameters, the definition leaves behavioral gaps—no auth/read-only confirmation and no clarification of the limit parameter—making it only adequately complete for this tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real value by giving the valid dimension values ('query' and 'page') and clarifying that 'days' means the last N days, but 'limit' and 'site_url' receive no semantic explanation, leaving half the parameters documented only by their self-evident names.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the specific metrics returned (Bing clicks, impressions, CTR, average position) and the two grouping modes (queries via dimension="query", pages via dimension="page"). This distinguishes it reasonably well from siblings like traffic_trend and keyword_research, though it never explicitly names or contrasts those alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It implies usage via 'top queries or pages over the last N days', which tells the agent what window and granularity to expect, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the sibling tools. Usage must be inferred.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the returned fields (status, URL count, last crawl) but says nothing about permissions, auth requirements, or whether the operation is read-only or mutating.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It packs the resource and returned fields efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the tool takes only one simple parameter. However, with no annotations and an undocumented parameter, the definition leaves behavioral and input-format gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the sole parameter site_url is undocumented in the schema. The description references 'the site' but adds no format, syntax, or example for site_url, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific resource ('Sitemaps and feeds Bing knows for the site') and implies a read/retrieval action, which distinguishes it from the write-oriented sibling submit_sitemap. It is clear but never explicitly names a sibling or verb to fully differentiate.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives like submit_sitemap or crawl_health. The agent must infer usage entirely from context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly fails: it says nothing about required site verification, whether the sitemap must belong to site_url, rate limits, or failure modes. The output schema covers return values, but for a mutation/submission tool this leaves significant gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though arguably so terse that useful context was sacrificed rather than trimmed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a submission tool with an output schema present, the description still omits prerequisites, parameter roles, and failure/success expectations. The agent has enough to attempt a call but not enough to call it correctly the first time.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, yet it only vaguely alludes to 'a sitemap' and 'Bing'. It never clarifies the distinction between site_url (the verified property) and sitemap_url, nor their expected formats.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (submit/resubmit) plus resource (sitemap) and destination (Bing), so the agent immediately knows the operation. It implicitly separates itself from submit_urls (URLs vs sitemap) and sitemaps, but never names those siblings explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The word 'resubmit' hints that repeat submission is allowed, but there is no statement of when to use this versus submit_urls or sitemaps, and no prerequisites (e.g., site ownership/verification) are given. The agent must infer the routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does genuinely useful work: the 500-URL cap, the daily quota constraint, and the conditional behavior keyed on the INDEXNOW_KEY environment variable, including which engines IndexNow reaches. It stops short of stating what happens when the quota is exhausted, whether submission guarantees indexing, or what authentication is required.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and the cap, followed by the conditional secondary behavior. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 2-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the behavioral side is well covered (quota, cap, dual submission), but the description explains nothing about the return value or confirmation semantics and leaves 'site_url' entirely undefined. An agent could call it, but with avoidable uncertainty about the required site identifier.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description needs to compensate. It does bound the 'urls' array at 500, which is real semantic value beyond the bare array-of-string schema, but it says nothing about 'site_url' — no format guidance (scheme, trailing slash, whether it must match the URLs' host) for a required parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource — submitting up to 500 URLs to Bing's URL Submission API, with a conditional IndexNow fan-out. The URL-level granularity implicitly and clearly separates it from the sibling submit_sitemap, so an agent can pick between them without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'crawl up to 500 URLs now' and the mention of a daily quota imply the use case (pushing fresh/updated URLs for immediate indexing), but the description never states when NOT to use it or names submit_sitemap as the alternative for bulk sitemap-based submission. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals the data source (Bing) and the daily granularity, which is useful, but says nothing about authorization requirements, whether the site must be verified, or any limits on lookback period. For a read-only analytics call the risk profile is low, but the usage context is undocumented.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the gaps in guidance and parameter documentation rather than being a strength.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return format need not be explained, but the tool lives in a webmaster toolbox full of adjacent analytics and indexing tools with no annotations, no parameter text, and no usage context. The description is not complete enough to disambiguate the tool from its siblings.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the two parameters are undocumented in structured fields. The description hints only loosely at site_url via 'for the site' and never mentions the 'days' parameter or its 90-day default, leaving the caller to infer the time window from the schema alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific resource and metric combination (daily Bing clicks and impressions), which is more informative than a bare name restatement. However, it does not distinguish itself from overlapping siblings like search_performance or traffic-oriented tools, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which of the adjacent analytics tools to pick.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. a connected Bing Webmaster Tools property), and no reference to alternative tools. The sibling set contains search_performance and list_sites, which could plausibly overlap, and the description gives no routing help between them.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the returned fields (which matters since there is no output schema), but says nothing about read-only semantics, authentication, or that site_url implies scoped access to a verified property.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The field list is dense but earns its place given no output schema; only the slightly awkward 'Whether Bing knows a URL' opener costs a point.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description adequately covers the return contents, which is the biggest gap left by the missing output schema. However, with zero annotations and zero parameter documentation for two required arguments, an agent still lacks the information needed to call it correctly and confidently.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% — neither 'url' nor 'site_url' is documented anywhere. The description never mentions the parameters, so it fails to compensate for the gap; notably it does not clarify how a bare URL relates to the required site_url.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific resource (a URL in Bing's index) and enumerates what it returns: discovery date, last crawl, HTTP status, inbound links, clicks/impressions. This distinguishes it from siblings like crawl_health and backlinks, though the framing 'whether Bing knows a URL' is slightly indirect rather than a clear verb.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the text whether to prefer this over backlinks, traffic_trend, or crawl_health for similar questions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.